This is what I don't get about the way this is being handled. Instead of threatening $500 fines for people whose neighbors rat them out, why don't they price water to its true cost¹? I guarantee consumption would plummet if the consumer had to pay for it.
¹Sure, there probably still needs to be variances for residential vs. agricultural use, and tier 1 vs. 2+, etc.
Domestic water is probably overpriced not underpriced. It's the farmers who pay way too little (often zero!) for water. This has created screwed up incentives for farmers. Many crops are worth less than the true cost of the water needed to grow them!
This is what happens when you have a system driven by politics and not the market - it's prone to lose touch with reality (actual cost/value). Unfortunately it will be very difficult to get back to prices based on actual costs - smaller number of big losers (some farmers) and lots of small winners (consumers & taxpayers) as well as tons of interlocking, inflexible regulations and subsidies (local, state & federal).
food industry should be partly subsidized by government, otherwise country could end up in trouble when people don't get enough neccessary basic food and stuff
Politicians, like most of the public, prefer to believe they have power over markets, and will use top-down rationing, rather than market-based pricing. See the gas/oil shortages of the 1970's, vs letting the market choose the price and having supply/demand automatically equalize based on price.
Also, some of the officials making the rules on water restrictions are guzzlers themselves [1].
Yes! That is what I am saying. I feel for the poor and the farmers, and I'm totally fine with paying more so they can pay less. I know I won't pay much more because I conserve, but the asshat down the street who waters the sidewalk will pay a lot more and I'm ok with that too.
¹Sure, there probably still needs to be variances for residential vs. agricultural use, and tier 1 vs. 2+, etc.